An Analysis of Resource Development and Performance in the Small Firm
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT The strategic development of resource stocks and their effects on firm performance was tested in small firms. Specifically, analysis was made of the impact on performance of strategic planning mechanisms (mission statements and strategic plans) and the differential impact of the types of resources available for development (tangible and intangible). Examination was also made of the performance effects of investments in non-professional versus managerial and professional workers. Results show that flexible, short-term strategic planning positively influences firm performance. But, the greatest effect was identified in investments in managerial and professional employees, especially those investments aimed at selection (through unstructured interviews) and later training (after the first year of employment). Our findings underscore the unique management challenges of small firms. They face a critical reliance on establishing and maintaining informal methods of control and communication while undertaking sensitive investments in resources under conditions of scarcity. Our results point to clear patterns of management and investment in top-performing small firms, and should interest researchers aiming to extend our understanding of small-firm resource development and practitioners attempting to make often difficult resource management decisions. INTRODUCTION The resource-based view of the firm, since its inception (Penrose, 1959; Wernerfelt, 1984; Barney, 1991), has focused on the creation of unique stocks of resources in firms. The bundles of resources informing organizations are built up over time (Ghemawat, 1991) and explain the heterogeneity of firms (Barney, 1991), provide protection from imitators (in the best firms) and ultimately result in superior performance (Dierickx & Cool, 1989; Peteraf, 1993; Reed & DeFillippi, 1990). The key resources for maintaining organizational superiority are most often related to human resources in the form of know-how (Teece, 1980; Teece, 1982), whether that be technological or other forms of innovative expertise or be process-oriented abilities in the form of routines (Nelson & Winter, 1982) and knowledge integration (Grant, 1996). Recent work has added important detail to the resource-based view, focusing on dynamic capabilities, mechanisms by which firms integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences to address rapidly changing (Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997, p. 516). Subsequent research (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000) has extended the concept of dynamic capabilities to include moderately changing environments by involving the concept of routines (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Whatever the environmental conditions, dynamic capabilities are repositories of organizational learning, functioning as tools through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness (Zollo & Winter, 2002, p. 340). Managers' over-riding duty is to develop and collect the knowledge that underlies both routines and dynamic capabilities (Grant, 1996). Indeed, management has always held a special, if not pre-eminent, place in the resource-based view of the firm. The Penrose effect, identified in the originating work of the resource-based view (Penrose, 1959), points to the direct influence of managerial knowledge on the growth of firms. Four levels of resources have been identified (production/maintenance, administrative, organizational learning and strategic vision resources) that move from lower to higher levels of uniqueness and flexibility and better explain sources of competitive advantage (Brumagin, 1994). Management is fundamental for developing and housing resources in the upper categories. Little surprise should therefore surround the fact that a managerial theory of the firm has been called for by some leading researchers (Bartlett & Ghoshal, 1993), albeit in the large firm. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».